Cargando…
Effectiveness of alternative listening devices to conventional hearing aids for adults with hearing loss: a systematic review protocol
INTRODUCTION: Hearing loss is a major public health concern, affecting over 11 million people in the UK. While hearing aids are the most common clinical intervention for hearing loss, the majority of people that would benefit from using hearing aids do not take them up. Recent technological advances...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5093370/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27789514 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011683 |
_version_ | 1782464905610264576 |
---|---|
author | Maidment, David W Barker, Alex B Xia, Jun Ferguson, Melanie A |
author_facet | Maidment, David W Barker, Alex B Xia, Jun Ferguson, Melanie A |
author_sort | Maidment, David W |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Hearing loss is a major public health concern, affecting over 11 million people in the UK. While hearing aids are the most common clinical intervention for hearing loss, the majority of people that would benefit from using hearing aids do not take them up. Recent technological advances have led to a rapid increase of alternative listening devices to conventional hearing aids. These include hearing aids that can be customised using a smartphone, smartphone-based ‘hearing aid’ apps, personal sound amplification products and wireless hearing products. However, no systematic review has been published evaluating whether alternative listening devices are an effective management strategy for people with hearing loss. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The objective of this systematic review is to assess whether alternative listening devices are an effective intervention for adults with hearing loss. Methods are reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 checklist. Retrospective or prospective studies, randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, and before-after comparison studies will be eligible for inclusion. We will include studies with adult participants (≥18 years) with a mild or moderate hearing loss. The intervention should be an alternative listening device to a conventional hearing aid (comparison). Studies will be restricted to outcomes associated with the consequences of hearing loss. We will search relevant databases to identify published, completed but unpublished and ongoing trials. The overall quality of included evidence will be evaluated using the GRADE system, and meta-analysis performed if appropriate. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical issues are foreseen. The findings will be reported at national and international conferences, primarily audiology, and ear, nose and throat, and in a peer-reviewed journal using the PRISMA guidelines. REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD4201502958. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5093370 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-50933702016-11-14 Effectiveness of alternative listening devices to conventional hearing aids for adults with hearing loss: a systematic review protocol Maidment, David W Barker, Alex B Xia, Jun Ferguson, Melanie A BMJ Open Public Health INTRODUCTION: Hearing loss is a major public health concern, affecting over 11 million people in the UK. While hearing aids are the most common clinical intervention for hearing loss, the majority of people that would benefit from using hearing aids do not take them up. Recent technological advances have led to a rapid increase of alternative listening devices to conventional hearing aids. These include hearing aids that can be customised using a smartphone, smartphone-based ‘hearing aid’ apps, personal sound amplification products and wireless hearing products. However, no systematic review has been published evaluating whether alternative listening devices are an effective management strategy for people with hearing loss. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The objective of this systematic review is to assess whether alternative listening devices are an effective intervention for adults with hearing loss. Methods are reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 checklist. Retrospective or prospective studies, randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, and before-after comparison studies will be eligible for inclusion. We will include studies with adult participants (≥18 years) with a mild or moderate hearing loss. The intervention should be an alternative listening device to a conventional hearing aid (comparison). Studies will be restricted to outcomes associated with the consequences of hearing loss. We will search relevant databases to identify published, completed but unpublished and ongoing trials. The overall quality of included evidence will be evaluated using the GRADE system, and meta-analysis performed if appropriate. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical issues are foreseen. The findings will be reported at national and international conferences, primarily audiology, and ear, nose and throat, and in a peer-reviewed journal using the PRISMA guidelines. REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD4201502958. BMJ Publishing Group 2016-10-27 /pmc/articles/PMC5093370/ /pubmed/27789514 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011683 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Public Health Maidment, David W Barker, Alex B Xia, Jun Ferguson, Melanie A Effectiveness of alternative listening devices to conventional hearing aids for adults with hearing loss: a systematic review protocol |
title | Effectiveness of alternative listening devices to conventional hearing aids for adults with hearing loss: a systematic review protocol |
title_full | Effectiveness of alternative listening devices to conventional hearing aids for adults with hearing loss: a systematic review protocol |
title_fullStr | Effectiveness of alternative listening devices to conventional hearing aids for adults with hearing loss: a systematic review protocol |
title_full_unstemmed | Effectiveness of alternative listening devices to conventional hearing aids for adults with hearing loss: a systematic review protocol |
title_short | Effectiveness of alternative listening devices to conventional hearing aids for adults with hearing loss: a systematic review protocol |
title_sort | effectiveness of alternative listening devices to conventional hearing aids for adults with hearing loss: a systematic review protocol |
topic | Public Health |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5093370/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27789514 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011683 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT maidmentdavidw effectivenessofalternativelisteningdevicestoconventionalhearingaidsforadultswithhearinglossasystematicreviewprotocol AT barkeralexb effectivenessofalternativelisteningdevicestoconventionalhearingaidsforadultswithhearinglossasystematicreviewprotocol AT xiajun effectivenessofalternativelisteningdevicestoconventionalhearingaidsforadultswithhearinglossasystematicreviewprotocol AT fergusonmelaniea effectivenessofalternativelisteningdevicestoconventionalhearingaidsforadultswithhearinglossasystematicreviewprotocol |